JackBean wrote:I see, so it is that the food is sweet or salty, whatever, because we like it, but yet we are able to perceive level of sugar or salt in the food? Isn't that contradictory?

JackBean wrote:So, the more we like it, the more sweet it is?

seriously, I don't know what else to write. I'm leaving. Congratulation, another debate won by beating opponent with plenty of posts rather than showing something valuable.

Absolute rot you're talking, Jack. You never did answer the questions. You only switched subjects and made new demands. BY contrast, I answered your questions even when you switched subjects. Once this is pointed out, you offer that kind of garbage response.What was contradictory ? You will not respond.In any case, I see no reason to make this an accusation thread. If you cannot respond with logic, I can accept that.The weakling option of closing the thread is always open to you.

charles brough wrote:It is not a matter whether flowers are beautiful or not but why we think they are.

I'd agree; they are beautiful TO US. They have no intrinsic beauty, it's all about us thinking they are beautiful - so why is that ?

It is why our taste for flowers is the same as whatthe flowers evolved for bees to attract them. We are not bees; we do not want their pollen.

So, why are we still attracted to flowers? The argument was advanced that they signal spring to us and a return to abundance. Also, that the plants depend upon us eating the fruit in order to spread its seeds. Of course, the fruit comes a long time after the flowers, so there appears to be some difficulty with that explanation.

It seems to me we ought to be able to do better with the question, but I've gone as far as I can.

There does seem some difficulty with the attempt at explanation - maybe it would be better not to first make up any story about what in particular it is that bees are attracted to, by flowers.

Assuming when we talk about a flower's beauty we are talking about visual cues - although there are no doubt others that might attract. So we must be talking about colour and form ?

JackBean wrote:you started with the video and saying, that the food is sweet because we like it

Not quite true. I showed the video and said that Dan offered a reasonable answer for "why", and then someone asked for my short report on what Dan was saying. Then you claimed it was rubbish and that you were responding to my words only. I don't mind defending it, but n o need to stretch things to what they were not.

The contradictory is, that we can perceive level of sweetness although it is sweet because we like it.

But my statement that you replied to, did not contain the word "sweetness" at all. I talked about "saltiness" only in reference to your avoidance of discussing how it is that having a receptor equals perception, to you.

You're inventing things. I said

You've avoided answering how having a receptor for salt equals having a perception of saltiness.

We can not only detect salt when it reaches some level in the food, but we can also roughly perceive it's relative level, in foods.

Variations in the personal preferences, regarding the enjoyed levels or amounts or concentrations, is another matter.

JackBean wrote:OK, so: The contradictory is, that we can perceive level of saltiness although it is salty because we like it.

We can perceive something as salty. We perceive something as sweet, because we have BRAINS that make us like it, and words that denote that it is of that thing we like. Why. is that contradictory?

We love chocolate cake because it tastes sweet. < This is backwards. It tastes sweet because we have brains that make us love it. We have sugar signal detectors. We call the signal "sweetness". That's his point.

Crucible wrote:We love chocolate cake because it tastes sweet. < This is backwards. It tastes sweet because we have brains that make us love it. We have sugar signal detectors. We call the signal "sweetness". That's his point.

thanks for bringing it up. So I didn't start with the sweetness, did I? You're obviously trying to manipulate the discussion with plenty of other examples just to get your approval, don't you? why don't you stay with the original one?

well, I like bitter. Why doesn't my brain tell me, that it is sweet, if I like it?

JackBean wrote:Crucible: just tell me one thing. If you think that the food is sweet because we like it, why1) are there people, who dislike sweet food?2) do we perceive different food, which we like as sweet, salty etc.? Why don't we perceive it all as sweet?

Crucible wrote:We love chocolate cake because it tastes sweet. < This is backwards. It tastes sweet because we have brains that make us love it. We have sugar signal detectors. We call the signal "sweetness". That's his point.

thanks for bringing it up. So I didn't start with the sweetness, did I?

No and nobody said you did.

You're obviously trying to manipulate the discussion

Naturally and of course ! And you are not ?

with plenty of other examples just to get your approval, don't you?

I don't understand what you are saying here. I do give other examples, yes.

why don't you stay with the original one?

Because you tangled yourself with that one. More examples give opportunity to show the same phenomenon when dealing with the "substance" and the "descriptor" words. That is, to look at the situation with examples where the descriptor of the sensation is a word derived from the word for the "substance" ( salt/saltiness) , and examples where the words differ ( sugar/sweetness), examples where no substance, ion, or molecule, is actually received by receptor( cuteness), and so on.

well, I like bitter. Why doesn't my brain tell me, that it is sweet, if I like it?

Why should it ?

Last edited by Crucible on Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.